421
submitted 2 years ago by EndOfLine@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The maker of the party game Cards Against Humanity has sued Elon Musk’s SpaceX accusing it of trespassing on and damaging company-owned property in Texas.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Texas court, asks for $15 million to cover damages including what the company calls the destruction of natural vegetation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

it bought the land to interfere with former President Donald Trump's plan to construct a wall along the Texas-Mexico border.

Won't work, they can use eminent domain.

But the land is near SpaceX’s operations, known as Starbase, and according to the lawsuit, SpaceX has been using the land without permission for about six months as a staging area for construction: clearing vegetation, parking vehicles, storing gravel and running generators.

Sounds like Elon.

*I keep the same thing about 1sq ft so here's the reply:

like 1ft sq, and give it to customers

Funny thing is courts see through shenanigans like this and really don't like being yanked around. This would probably hurt them if anything.

*Who split it into 1 sq ft? I highly, highly doubt any land office would accept that. That would be an obviously unusable plot. No road access, no utility access, any of that.

[-] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 41 points 2 years ago

Exercising eminent domain can mean a long and expensive legal and media process. I'm not sure about Texas (or the rest of the US, for that matter), but many projects in the first world do everything possible to avoid using it.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Depending on what land they bought, they can also go around it. The wall's not actually right on the border which curves with the river. It's straight to reduce the length (and cost) and leaves out big pieces of US land.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They bought the land that would be the best possible route for the wall. They also intended to parcel it out in think 1 sqft segments and sell it to people, so eminent domain would have to deal with literally a thousand people possibly filing separate lawsuits.

It was a stunt as I recall, but an imaginative one. They had another that was simply "we dig a hole as long as you donate." All it was was a dude digging a hole out in the boonies in a field with a digger. As long as they had money to pay him, they kept paying him. It had no point at all. They had a FAQ with a question like "why are you doing this? Why not stop and donate the money to a good cause?" And their reply was "why the fuck are you giving us money to do this? You should stop and donate the money to a good cause."

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

They also intended to parcel it out in think 1 sqft segments

I already answered this to someone else https://lemmy.world/comment/12476765

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Sure. I don't think they went through with it, probably for exactly those reasons. It was a novel prank though.

[-] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

As someone else said, eminent domain is a legal process, and thus time consuming. If I remember correctly, CAHs plan or gimmick was they were going to divide up the land into very small pieces, like 1ft sq, and give it to customers. I think it might have been a black Friday sale gimmick. The idea being there would be hundreds of thousands of people with ownership of border wall land, requiring hundreds or thousands of eminent domain lawsuits to be filed. Not a ironclad solution but, in theory, an impressive way to jam up the wall project. I assume the land in question is part of this gimmick.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

like 1ft sq, and give it to customers

Funny thing is courts see through shenanigans like this and really don't like being yanked around. This would probably hurt them if anything.

*Who split it into 1 sq ft? I highly, highly doubt any land office would accept that. That would be an obviously unusable plot. No road access, no utility access, any of that.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Ok, that's gooood. 2 thumbs for inventiveness and dumbfuckery extraordinaire.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

They bought it, split it up, and gave a piece to everyone that donated/funded. So like 10,000 individuals. The government can always take it, but it wasn't intended to prevent that entirely. The intention was to make it time consuming and difficult to build the wall there, which in turn would likely prevent building starting in the first place.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
421 points (99.1% liked)

News

37055 readers
1089 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS